Calleguas Watershed | Creating Connections

Questions and Answers from Project Proponents
2014 IRWM Drought Project Solicitation

Questions for All Project Proponents
Please provide/confirm the following information for your project:

1. Total project cost
2. Grant funding request
3. Minimum grant amount acceptable to proceed
4. Percent matching funds to be provided
5. Acrefeet/year of new water created/conserved
6. Other quantified benefits related to the project solicitation guidelines
   
   The information above will be compiled by watershed and provided by the WCVC Steering Committee / General Membership meeting, Monday, May 12, 9:30 a.m. County Government Center.

Regional Project
Ventura County Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Program (Ventura County Watershed Protection District in cooperation with Ventura County Resource Conservation District, Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, and the Farm Bureau of Ventura County)
Please clarify the cost allocation between match and reimbursement and provide a detailed breakdown for the costs.The details of the program are still under development, however, the following give a very rough idea about the program:

• Water Audit – approximately $40 per acre
• Irrigation Changes – approximately $1,000 per acre.
• Program Administration and Data Management – approximately $70 per acre
• The growers would be obligated to pay 40% of the total costs if they choose to implement the recommendations of the water audit.

For example, a grower with 100 acres: 

• Water Audit $4,000
• Irrigation Equipment $100,000
• Program Costs $7,000
• Total $110,000
• Grower pays $44,000

Assuming it saves 1 acre-foot of water per acre total savings is 100 acre-feet of water at a cost of $440 per acre-foot. The grower could then calculate annual operations and maintenance costs to determine the long term savings based on the reduction in groundwater being pumped.
Please provide examples of the types of water conservation measures that would be implemented and quantify the volume and type of installed devices or implemented measures that would account for the 10,000 to 16,000 af/year referenced in the form. Water conservation measures would relate directly to irrigation methods utilized by the growers. Converting from furrow or flood irrigation to systems such as drip irrigation could easily reduce the amount of water needed for irrigation. Given the variety of climatic zones, varying soil conditions, numerous crop types and configurations it’s very difficult to list all the solutions that may be available to growers to improve their irrigation efficiency. The purpose of the program would be to work with the grower to undertake a water audit, review the site conditions (including soil, climatic conditions, actual and planned crops, and others as appropriate), and to recommend and implement changes to the irrigation system to improve efficiencies. Data collection would be extensive and could be used as the performance measure for efficient irrigation methods by crop type by zone across the County of Ventura. The data will most certainly be used by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency as it implements Emergency Ordinance E and struggles to reduce the overdraft in the groundwater basin.

Santa Clara River Watershed Projects

County Stormwater Retrofits for Groundwater Recharge (County of Ventura)

1. Please explain how the project site located in the Oxnard Plain Pressure Plain groundwater basin and the three sites located in the Santa Paula groundwater basin will increase groundwater recharge.  It appears that the sites may be located outside of groundwater recharge areas.  The Oxnard Plain Pressure Basin is generally described as having clay barriers to groundwater infiltration and tile drains to drain shallow infiltrated groundwater.  The Santa Paula Hospital location is on top of a hill while maps of the Santa Paula groundwater basin show it overlying the valley floor.  The proposed project site at Ventura County Behavioral Science Facility located above the Oxnard Plain Pressure GW Basin was about 7% of the total project. After further evaluation, this site was removed from the proposed project scope. Due to higher elevation, the Santa Paula Hospital site may result in additional time required to reach groundwater basin. Based on Ventura County soil maps, the remaining projects are assumed to provide reliable groundwater recharge. If this project is selected for grant application submittal, County of Ventura will conduct on-site testing for site specific information.
2. Please explain how the project site located in the Piru groundwater basin will increase groundwater recharge since most stormwater in the area already infiltrates in the Santa Clara River. The goal of any Low Impact Development (LID)/Green Streets project is to infiltrate stormwater runoff for treatment and groundwater recharge instead of discharging of untreated runoff into the creek, river, and/or the Ocean. Proposed stormwater treatment retrofit will provide for sustainable and long term recharge of groundwater basin with treated stormwater runoff to mimic natural infiltration processes prior to the existing development.
3. Given the specific site conditions, how much groundwater recharge (as opposed to infiltration) is estimated dry, average, and wet years.  How does the cost of the project compare to the estimated increased groundwater available for beneficial use?  Based on County of Ventura soil maps, our assumption is that 100% of captured water will be infiltrated for groundwater recharge. The estimated 51 AFY of created water volume for groundwater recharge includes estimates based on wet-weather data available for last 10 years and dry-weather data obtained by the County as a part of a dry-weather runoff special study completed in County Unincorporated residential area. This groundwater recharge volume estimate does not include the very likely volume increase due to immediate infiltration into the soils as soon as stormwater enters infiltration trenches. If project is selected, on-site testing will be conducted to generate site-specific information.

West Ventura County Emergency Water Intertie (City of Ventura - Ventura Water, in cooperation with the City of Oxnard)  

• This project has been withdrawn from consideration for this round of grant funding at the request of the project proponent.

Pilot ASR Well for Groundwater Replenishment Reuse (City of Oxnard)

1. Given the staffing constraints currently being experienced by the city, does it have the administrative capacity to begin construction by April 1, 2015?  The City does have staff for this project, and also has the ability to contract for additional implementation assistance if needed.
2. What are the additional approvals and facilities necessary for this pilot project to result in actual increased water resources?  No additional facilities are required. We will need GMA approval as well as approval of the California Department of Public Health and State Water Resources Control Board. The project will require an amendment to the need addendum to GREAT program EIR, State Clearing House number SCH 2003 011045.

Calleguas Creek Watershed Projects

Salinity Management Pipeline, Phase 2D (Calleguas Municipal Water District)

1. Is other infrastructure (desalters) needed to complete the project and reach 3400 AFY water savings? If so what is the status of the other needed work? Two pieces of infrastructure are needed to enable the 3,400 AFY production: construction of a downstream SMP reach (Phase 2B) and the agricultural desalter itself.  Both are achievable within an acceptable timeframe.  Details are provided below.  
   There is a 2 mile reach of SMP, known as Phase 2B, which is currently out to bid.  It follows Lewis Road, Pleasant Valley Road, Dawson Drive, and North Lewis Road.  With completion of that reach, SMP 2D will be connected to the ocean outfall in Port Hueneme.  
   Initial work on the agricultural desalter is well underway.  Five mutual water companies, VCWWD, and Calleguas are working on a state‐funded (Prop 84 planning grant) study to evaluate the use of existing infrastructure to wheel water from one or more desalters to those pumpers whose wells are experiencing increased salinity.  The 3,400 AFY is the production needed to provide high quality water to agricultural customers whose wells are currently too saline to use for irrigation of high quality crops.  Some of these entities (Zone Mutual Water Company, Arroyo Las Posas Mutual Water Company, and agricultural customers of VCWWD19) are currently using imported water for blending.  Others are experiencing a limitation on the types of crops they can grow, reduced crop quality and yield, and the need to use extra water to flush salts through the soil.  The saline water has been flowing from Simi Valley and Moorpark wastewater treatment plants into the basin since the 1970s, resulting in a large quantity currently in both the shallow and deep aquifers.
2. How certain are you that an ag desalter will be built? It has to be built; the growers do not have a viable alternative.  There is insufficient high quality water remaining in the deep aquifer to sustain the agriculture in the area.  Treatment of this saline groundwater is estimated to cost $500 to $600 per acre‐foot compared to the cost of imported water at over $1,200 per acre‐foot.  That cost is feasible for use all the time on high value crops like strawberries and for lower value crops for occasional flushing of salts from the soil.
3. Are ground water levels sustainable to support additional pumping from the aquifer? The agricultural desalter will not result in additional pumping.  The farmers are pumping groundwater now, except the imported water used to blend. Admittedly, the agricultural desalter will require about 15 to 20% more water because that much will be discharged as brine, but that is expected to be largely offset by the need to use less water for leaching of salinity from the soil.
4. With the proposed Moorpark desalter upstream, is there sufficient excess groundwater to support these two desalters? The agricultural desalter does not rely on excess groundwater; rather the agricultural desalter will treat existing groundwater.  The Moorpark Desalter will involve new pumping in the basin to replace imported water and, thus, relies on excess water and/or increased recharge to keep the basin in balance.  At the currently proposed capacity of 5,000 AFY, there may not be enough excess groundwater to support the additional pumping for the Moorpark Desalter without an aquifer recharge project or pumping reductions elsewhere in the basin.
5. What approvals will be necessary from the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency to develop this water and, if coordination is necessary, what is the status of that coordination?  Because the agricultural pumpers are already using the groundwater and have the right to pump according to an efficiency calculation, little to no additional approvals are expected to be required.
6. How will reductions of inflows from the development of recycled water in Simi Valley affect the viability of this project?  Simi Valley currently discharges about 9,500 AFY from their recycled water plant.  According to their most recent recycled water master plan, they plan to develop 1,170 AFY.  This represents only about a 5% loss of the water budget for the East/South Las Posas basins. This leaves a large volume of water continuing to discharge to the Las Posas basin for many years to come.
7. What is the total estimated cost for both the desalters and the SMP per af of developed water?   The cost for the agricultural desalter (Zone) is estimated to be $500 to $600 per AF and the cost of the municipal desalter is estimated to be $800 to $1,000 per AF.   Please note that these are complete costs and include both capital and O&M, as well as the cost to discharge brine (which includes SMP capital and O&M costs).  The SMP will be paid off by all of the dischargers over the next 30 to 40 years, which is a shorter period than its anticipated life of 50 to 75 years.

PV Well Project (Camrosa Water District)

1. Can you combine all three of your small projects into one larger project and just ask for one lump sum? Why did you break it into three projects since we have heard it is not worth the effort to get a grant unless it is at least $500,000? Can you combine all the projects on one map and call it a piping upgrade?  I know we have heard that a project costing less than $500,000 is not worth the effort, but the “value of the effort” should be measured by the results (as in the reduction of import), not the project cost. If the value is placed on project cost, then a $1,000,000 project that produces 500 acre feet of water is more valuable than a $400,000 project producing 500 acre feet of water. How can it be said that it is not worth pursuing the $400,000 project when it produces the same results for much less money? The $400,000 project is worth the effort because the results are the same (500AF) as the more expensive project, but with a smaller price tag, leaving more money in the pool for other projects.
2. CEQA not completed so what are permitting issues? I am not sure I understand the agreement, but can the FCGMA  extraction allocations be met under the current pumping restrictions?  Is the viability of this project jeopardized by recent or potential future FCGMA cutback actions?  The FCGMA adopted Resolution 2014-1 establishing the Conejo Creek Pumping Program. This project (PV Well) is part of the FCGMA approved pumping extractions identified in the resolution and is exempt from the FCGMA emergency Ordinance E that was recently adopted. Language was inserted into Ordinance E to allow this program, which includes the drilling of the PV Well, to continue. Regarding permitting, the District is exempt from any building permits or zoning under California Code 53091. Although CEQA is required, we do not see it as an issue. We have the ability to get a Mitigated NegDec in short order. In addition, Governor Jerry Brown issued and Executive Order to Redouble State Drought Actions on April 25th 2014 that streamlined the process and in some instances suspended the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act. As stated in the proclamation, “For several actions called for in this proclamation, environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act is suspended to allow these actions to take place as quickly as possible.” We believe this project falls into that category. The proclamation also stated, “The Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) will immediately and expeditiously process requests to move water to areas of need, including requests involving voluntary water transfers, forbearance agreements, water exchanges, or other means. If necessary, the Department will request that the Water Board consider changes to water right permits to enable such voluntary movements of water.”

West Simi Valley Recycled Water Project, Phase 3 (Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8)

1.  Is the Project dependent upon any other infrastructure projects to function?  Phase 3 is dependent on Phase 2 of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project, which are both currently under design with construction of Phases 2 and 3 to begin by April 1, 2015.
2. Is 320 AFY is currently being supplied by State water but will be replaced by recycled water?  The recycled water to be delivered by Phase 3 will replace potable water from the State Water Project being supplied to customers served by Phase 3 including Sunset Hills Golf Course, the primary customer.
3. What is the plan to secure commitments from customers to use the recycled water?  The District has received a Letter of Intent (attached) from American Golf Corporation, owners of the Sunset Hills Golf Course, to use recycled water.  The District will prepare the Use Site Report for AGC to determine their requirements to convert to recycled water use.

Meter Station No. 7 and Penny Well (Camrosa Water District) Projects combined.

1. How would Camrosa rank its own projects in terms of priority (considering these two as separate projects)?  They are equal and similar projects, both from a cost and from a result standpoint.
2. The project description for Meter Station No. 7 is not clear. It seems to say the ag users cannot use recycled water, but the project will allow them to do so. Is it that this project will allow blending of water sources where presently one must use 100% of one or the other? Currently, the AG users are receiving a blend of 50% recycled water (technically non-potable surface) and 50% import water. The import blend is required to reduce chloride levels in the recycled water. This blend will not change. Currently, the pipe used to deliver the potable blend to the AG pump station is part of the infrastructure of a larger zone that includes residential customers. The entire zone is 100% import water so that the AG pump station receives the needed import blend. This project would provide a dedicated pipeline to provide necessary import water blend to the AG pump station, thus removing AG users from the pressure zone and allowing the pressure zone to be  converted from 100% import water to a blend of 60% import and 40% groundwater. This equates to a 350 acre foot reduction in the demand of state water import.
3. Regarding the Penny Well project, can we be sure the ground water supply will support this well over the long term without over draft issues?  Camrosa recently completed a Basin update that suggests there is adequate water supply. The District is currently developing a Basin Monitoring Plan in accordance with AB3030, which will provide adaptive management and monitoring of the basin to determine safe yield and prevent over drafting of the basin. The District has completed a basic basin recharge analysis that indicated the basin will take recharge. We will be completing a more comprehensive recharge study in the next few months that includes the drilling of monitoring wells and more comprehensive testing.

Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant Tertiary Facility Optimization (Ventura County Waterworks District  No. 1)

1. This project would generate 60 AFY as proposed but you state it could go as high as 200 AFY. Would that require additional infrastructure? Can we assume there is a demand for the recycled water?  The project will generate an immediate water saving or additional local water supply of 60 AFY for the 1.5 MGD tertiary treatment facility when we change the filter units from continuous backwash system to intermittent backwash system. When we receive regulatory permit approval to uprate our tertiary facility from the 1.5 MGD to the 2.5 MGD as part of this project, we will be able to provide up to 650 AFY of additional local water supply.
   
   Yes, there is a demand for the recycled water. Currently, VCWWD 1 recycled water system regularly cannot meet the peak recycled water distribution system demand, and the recycled water shortage situation gets worse during the warmer months of the year. The situation will get even worse when the Recycled Water Phase 4 project is completed by the end of 2015.
2. Can the additional recycled water generated be utilized by existing or soon-to-be-completed recycled water infrastructure? Or is additional RW infrastructure needed to make use of this additional water supply?  Yes, the additional recycled water generated will be utilized by the existing and soon-to-be completed recycled water infrastructure. The existing recycled water distribution system include the Recycled Water Lines Phases 1, 2 and 3, and the recycled users include the Moorpark Country Club Golf Course, agricultural, commercial, and industrial users. The Recycled Water Phase 4 project will be completed about the same time as the proposed Moorpark WWTP Tertiary Facility Optimization project. The Recycled Water Phase 4 project will add recycled water users including the Rustic Canyon Golf Course, Moorpark Country Club Estates Homeowners Association, City of Moorpark Landscape Maintenance District, and agricultural users. We will be able to use the full 2.5 MGD recycled water produced from tertiary treatment facility during at least six months of the year and increase local water supply by 650 AFY.

Pancho Road Reclaimed Water Pipeline (City of Camarillo)

1. What is the plan to secure commitments from customers to use the recycled water?
   See the map of new customers that will be served by additional recycled water distribution system. The Pancho Road Reclaimed Water Pipeline will serve customers 12 through 17 and we’ve got written commitments from all except 13 which we have a verbal commitment. All of those customers are current potable customers.
   
   
   
   

2.  Is this project dependent on any other projects being completed? If so what is their status?  Provide backup information on how the 1,000 AFY savings is calculated (i.e. who will switch water sources)?

This project is not dependent on any other project. This project would serve customers 12through 15 with recycled water demand of about 400 AF/Y. It complements a project (24-inch pipeline across Howard Rd.) currently under the final stages of design (need ROW and permits) and received a IRWM – Prop. 84 R1 grant; will serve customers 16 through18 for a recycled water demand of 600 AF/Y. The attached table shows current potable water usage from customers 12 through 18 and all will convert to recycled water for irrigating crops and landscape. The information used to estimate recycled water demand are based on historical potable water consumption records (see table above).

Ventura River Watershed Projects

San Antonio Creek Arundo Removal Project (Ojai Valley Land Conservancy)

1. Has the City of Ventura documented increases in its Foster Park well production from previous arundo removal projects?  We do not believe this analysis has been conducted. There are many variables affecting well levels this low in the watershed, so well levels are probably not the best way of measuring these impacts. The anticipated water gain from the project is based on extrapolation of scientific research on Arundo transpiration volumes in comparison with native riparian vegetation.
2. Would the water made available by the arundo removal be available for municipal water supplies or are there other constraints (e.g. in stream use) that limit the water production from these facilities? The anticipated water gain will remain in San Antonio Creek and the lower Ventura River and be subject to the same usages that current water is used for. No encumbrance of this potential water gain is proposed. It is anticipated that benefits will accrue to steelhead and other wildlife utilizing wetted streams and wells that are drawing water that is closely associated with surface flow.
3. Is CEQA needed? CEQA compliance will be acquired part of the necessary Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. Will this grant result in the full 320 AFY or projected recharge, or is it dependent on other projects? Can you document water savings?  The anticipated water gain from the project is based on extrapolation of scientific research on Arundo transpiration volumes in comparison with native riparian vegetation. The anticipated volume of 320 acre-feet per year is the extrapolation of the 16 acres of Arundo currently present in the proposed project area, and does not include or require results from other efforts. It is likely that the other Arundo removal projects will enhance the value of this proposed project and vice versa. Directly measuring the transpiration of arundo and new native vegetation to calculate the difference isn’t a practical method of determining benefits. Rather, the benefits are calculated based on the existing literature on the topic. Using the known transpiration rates of arundo and native vegetation, the water savings can be documented by assessing the area of Arundo removed.
5. Is long term maintenance required and included in this grant proposal? It is anticipated that following a number of years of effort that all but perhaps a few arundo plants will be gone for good.  It is hard to issue a guarantee, as preventing re-infestation is part of every long term effort of this type, and the effort needs to be uniform and regional in scale. By re-planting a majority of the Arundo removal areas, these areas will be less vulnerable to re-infestation.  At some point, it may be necessary to do more work to sustain the benefits, as is the case in all such regional management or construction efforts, including those that will require infrastructure maintenance. Therefore, it is likely that long-term maintenance may be needed, and funding this work is not part of the grant request.

Lake Casitas Aeration Project (Casitas Municipal Water District)

1. How may AFY will this project produce?  The Lake Casitas Aeration project will protect the primary water supply in western Ventura county during drought conditions. Demand on Lake Casitas’ is 20,000 to 25,000 acre-feet per year in a drought, which could be disrupted without this project.
   
   There are different types of water quality conditions impacting water supply throughout the county during droughts. For example, sea water intrusion or increased nitrates in groundwater supplies can occur in many areas that have diminished groundwater supplies in the county.
   
   In western Ventura county, Lake Casitas is the primary water supply during drought conditions since groundwater supplies are diminished and the area is completely dependent on local supplies. At low lake levels, this supply is impacted due to increased frequency and severity of algae blooms along with diminished water treatment options. The purpose of the Lake Casitas Aeration project is to avoid water quality degradation during low supply conditions that could disrupt Casitas' ability to supply potable water.
   
   Water quality data from the 1960s, shortly after the dam was built, showed that significant water quality conditions existed (Johnson, P.L., and J.F. LaBounty. 1988. Optimization of Multiple Reservoir Uses Through Reaeration - Lake Casitas, USA: A Case Study. Commision Internationale des Grands Barrages. SeiziŠme CongrŠs des Grands Barrages, San Francisco, 1988. Q. 60, R. 27 pp. 437-451.) Due to the current historic drought, Lake Casitas will reach these lower levels by this fall for the first time since the 1960s.
2.  Has the proposed method been tested and proven effective?  There is every indication of the effectiveness of similar aeration projects completed at the following sites Upper San Leandro Reservoir (2012) and Calero Reservoir (2011) with the Santa Clara Valley Water District; San Antonio Reservoir (2009) and Calaveras Reservoir (2005) with the San Francisco Public Utility.
   
   The following is a list of scholarly publications, presentations, studies and reports related to lake oxygenation systems that address lake water quality conditions:
   
   McMahon, S. L. Ding, and I. Hannoun, 2012. Lake Casitas Water Quality Investigation, Presented at CALMS 2012 meeting, October 4, 2012, San Diego, CA
   
   Kavanagh, K., Ding, L., List, J. (2013). “Lake Casitas Water Quality Study.” Prepared for Casitas Municipal Water District by Flow Science Inc.
   
   Beutel, M., I. Hannoun, J. Pasek, and K. B. Kavanagh). Evaluation of Hypolimnetic Oxygen Demand in a Large Eutrophic Raw Water Reservoir, San Vicente Reservoir, California. Journal of Environmental Engineering, February 2007.
   
   Debroux, J., Beutel, M., Thompson, C., and Mulligan, S. (2012). "Design and testing of a novel hypolimnetic oxygenation system to improve water quality in Lake Bard, California." Lake and Reservoir Management, 28(3), 245-254. Online publication date: 1-Sep-2012.
3. What are the alternatives?  A feasibility study examined four different aeration options. The recommended project was decided based on specific water quality conditions related to Lake Casitas. There is also a no action alternative option but this puts the primary water supply for this part of the county at risk.
4. What technical studies have been done to support the efficacy of this approach in addressing the specific water quality concerns in Lake Casitas? Water Quality Solutions performed a Feasibility Study of a Hypolimnetic Oxygenation System for Lake Casitas on September 23, 2013. This study analyzed several options and recommended the approach of this project due to its greater efficacy in addressing Lake Casitas’ water quality concerns over other potential projects examined.
   
   A previous study conducted Kavanagh, K., Ding, L., List, J. (2013). “Lake Casitas Water Quality Study.” prepared for the Casitas Municipal Water District by Flow Science Inc. also examined risks to Lake Casitas’ water quality related to lake levels and anoxic zones and possible aeration solutions.

Efficiency Metering - Westside Ventura (City of Ventura - Ventura Water, in cooperation with Casitas Municipal Water District)

1. Explain how water savings is calculated. How do we know leaks will be repaired and how many leaks there actually are?  Ventura Water anticipates that the project will save 72-144 acre feet per year. This is based on 3,500 households being retrofitted with Automated Meter Infrastructure (AMI).  We know from our water usage analysis that the water demand of a single family home in our project area is approximately 0.41 AFY.  We are assuming a 5-10% conservation savings by the installation of AMI (this is what the market studies predict and of course the amount may vary).  Installation of the AMI in the west side area of Ventura will allow us to monitor water usage in an area of the City that has a high turnover of property ownership and move outs (since rental costs are lower than the rest of the City).  Due to the transient nature and the old infrastructure of the residences in the area there is less interest in water conservation and the fixing of leaks by our customers.  With AMI, Ventura Water can monitor usage continuously and flags can be set to detect leaks, thereby via timely notification and explaining how cost saving directly applies to the rate payer we are confident that repairs will be made.

Stormwater Capture Drying Bed Capacity Improvement (Ojai Valley Sanitary District)

1. Please elaborate on how the project's captured flows will be managed, released, and/or reused. Please clarify how these flows will be used and provide information about any additional infrastructure that may be required to achieve that reuse.  The project will be able to capture up to 24 acre feet, per storm event.  Weldon Canyon creek is a concrete channel, adjacent to the Ventura Water Facility and it bisects the OVSD Treatment Plant site.  Low flows in Weldon creek would be allowed to bypass the diversion structure.  The diversion structure would be constructed 12 inches off the flowline, thereby only beginning to divert water flow when the depth of flow exceeds 12 inches.  The diversion structure would be a manually operated gate valve, opened during storm events and closed when the 24 acre feet of water of capacity had been collected.  Flows would gravity flow into the basins, eliminating the need for pumps, electricity, maintenance and long term O&M.  The flows would be held, until after the storm event had passed and until flows in Weldon Creek and the Ventura River had subsided from their peak.  Each storm event would be unique, but it is estimated that the water would be released between 7 and 14 days later.  The released flow would then enhance the flow in the river, increasing ecosystem flows, adding to groundwater recharge and adding to flows entering the lagoon.  The only infrastructure required to achieve the project includes the lowering of the beds, a diversion structure and pvc pipe into the beds and a valve/discharge structure.
    
2. The application says up to 24 AFY capture but what is the expected recharge? Does the project rely on other future projects to provide this benefit? What is their status? If no CEQA has been completed, will that impact project completions?  The project will capture 24 AF per storm, not AFY.  Depending on the weather, it is estimated that 4-6 storms per year would meet the minimum flow requirements for diversion to occur.  Actual recharge would be dependant on the river flow and flow regimes in the river.  All the flow would be provided to the ecosystem and the lagoon.  In addition, any capture would provide a flood control benefit by reducing the peak flow in the river.  No other future projects are required.  However, additional study and projects could add on to the project.  Rather than discharge into the river, reuse as raw water, processing the water for potable use and/or direct injection could be additional uses.  CEQA has been started and there have been initial conversations with regulatory agencies.  An initial study review indicates that 2 issues arise:  (1) construction phase impacts which can be mitigated and (2)possible diversion of water.  There is no permanent diversion of water, all water will be returned to the river, just held for a period of 7-14 days.  Conversations with F&W have been productive and supportive.  The initial study will be completed in the next 30 days, with reg. agency meetings as well.

Foster Park Wells Completion Improvement Project (Ventura County Watershed Protection District in cooperation with the City of Ventura)

• This project has been withdrawn from consideration for this round of grant funding at the request of the project proponent.

End of Questions and Answers